A Different Approach to Cosmology by Fred Hoyle, Geoffrey Burbidge and J. V. Narlikar, Cambridge University Press, 拢35, ISBN 0521662230
FRED HOYLE is one of the most famous living astronomers in Britain. This is not only because he wrote excellent popular books and gave inspirational radio broadcasts, but also because of a wilful determination to court controversy, pronouncing on viruses from space, or airing allegations about faked fossils.
But it is astrophysics and cosmology for which he was first known. He made fundamental contributions to astrophysics, including pioneering work on how heavy elements are forged inside stars. When his one-time collaborator William Fowler received the physics Nobel for research in this area, many felt Hoyle was unlucky not to have shared it with him.
Advertisement
Hoyle also played a prominent role in the development of the steady-state theory of cosmology, in which matter is continuously created out of nothing as the Universe expands-so keeping the cosmic density constant. Now, aged 85 and long in retirement, he has teamed up with two erstwhile colleagues to review the field in which he cut his scientific teeth.
Cosmology has changed a lot since Hoyle鈥檚 day and is now completely dominated by the big bang model. This describes our Universe as initially very dense and hot, but expanding, cooling and getting emptier ever since. Hoyle never liked this notion and stuck fast to the steady-state theory. (Ironically, it was Hoyle himself who coined the phrase 鈥渂ig bang鈥� during a BBC broadcast.)
Continuous creation was an elegant hypothesis, which attracted the support of many leading cosmologists. One reason was that it could be tested far more easily than the big bang model. Any sign that the Universe was changing with time would refute the idea of a steady state. The model failed the test. Accurate measurements of the cosmic microwave background proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the Universe was hotter and denser in the past than it is today.
Hoyle has never forgiven the scientific community, or indeed, the Universe, for rejecting the steady-state theory. He added elaborate variations in unsuccessful attempts to bring it into closer line with reality. He still rages against the dying of the theory, and a lingering bitterness pervades this book.
Most modern cosmologists agree that the big bang provides a broad-brush picture not only of how the bulk constituents of the Universe evolved, but also of how stars and galaxies formed. Many questions remain, and it is true that the successes of the big bang have led to unjustified claims that confuse what is known with what is merely thought. If this book had been what it could have been-an objective account of the successes and failures of modern cosmology by a distinguished outsider with a unique perspective-then it would have made a fascinating read.
In places, the book fulfils this role. For example, those carried away by the near hysteria surrounding claimed measurements of cosmic acceleration would do well to read what it has to say. Regrettably, these moments are few and far between. Gratuitous insults litter the book, most of them aimed at easy targets.
I can sum up the book by quoting its attempted lampoon of a big bang cosmologist: 鈥淚 know my theory is right. Therefore anything required to make it work must also be right . . .鈥� Given the baroque complexity of the latest version of the 鈥渜uasi steady-state鈥� theory, it is astonishing that the authors missed the irony.